Re: Laser ranging to moon begs questions


"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:f379i3tvieq8fle31o479gqjqbb5pcdab4@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:21:17 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


I wasn't taking the piss. I didn't know what you meant.

That must local jargon, very local. Why would you clip out my
informatonal comment and save all the persiflage?



"Taking the piss" = "Mocking someone" in Australian. Sorry.



But if you mean that you are hoping that somebody who actually works at
one
of these facilities reads this ng, you are probably out of luck.

No, an informational paper with the details. In the Pioneer program
there were all kinds of diagrams, and remarks that some data batches
were 5 days long.


Craig posted references to a whole lot of papers. Have you looked at them?



You could
just phone one of the observatories or visit one in person; I am sure that
they would be tickled to have somebody display an interest in what they
do,
and would be very helpful.

Actually, one of the OP's on this thread, who earlier was quite
voluble in the opinion that processing single photons was a "piece of
cake", who should be able to shed light.

Why? Did he work at one of the observatories? If he didn't, I would think
you would be far better off listening to Craig, who obviously has a lot of
knowledge on the subject (and, I suspect, rather more than someone who
described single photon capture as a "piece of cake").


I thought it would be
interesting to hear more.

If the answers you want are not in the papers that Craig has referenced, and
Craig or myself can't answer them, then its pretty easy to call or visit one
of these observatories and ask them about how the equipment works, if you
really want to know.


At least we're still on topic, "begging the
question".

I don't see that. I can't see what "question has been begged". I cannot see
what question you have asked which has not been answered. The only
substantive question I have seen is "why doesn't my calculation give the
correct observed value for the return photon count". Many answers have
already been given for this. Have you any other questions?

Perhaps you would be better off going through the calculations in the papers
provided - which do supply the correct numbers - and see how the return
photon count is calculated. You can then modify your calculation to match
the parameters in the papers, and you should be able to find the error in
your calculation yourself.

If there is anything you can't understand in the papers, you can ask for
clarification here. If I can help, I will (although whilst I know a lot
about EM radiation and information theory, I know nothing about the details
of the experimental setup. Craig does seem to know a lot about the
experimental setup as well; if you ask nicely, I am sure he will help you

understand the papers if I can't.)

And, as I said, as a final resort ring the authors of the papers, or the
observatories, or visit one yourself. I doubt this will be necessary, but
that option always exists.

So, what don't you understand in the papers that Craig has referenced?


This thread is tougher than the kudzu vine that grows up my pool
screen. You can cut it and chop it, you just can't kill it. There's so
little in the way of firm data available it would be useless to
continue.
Your condescending tone is totally misplaced, as you continue to drone
on ala "You can then modify your calculation to match
the parameters in the papers, and you should be able to find the error
in your calculation yourself".

My condenscending tone is completely appropriate.

You have made numerous basic errors in your calculations, which have been pointed out to you. You have not corrected these, or even acknowledged you have made a mistake.

If you keep arguing that your calculations are correct, then you are never going to find the error in them.


Here's your chance to redeem yourself in a half dozen terse lines.
Write down all the parameters you boast of and we can go from there.
Also post your estimate of the final number of photons per pulse, per
second, per week, your choice (so I can peek as I try to fashion a
suitable solution).

I'm not going to do this, for a few reasons:

1. My solution would use what you call "cookbook physics", which I assume means physics found in physics textbooks. You seem to reject this.

2. My calculations would rely on concepts that include aperture and diffraction, as applied to the reflectors on the moon. You have completely rejected this as an effect; it makes a huge difference, and without it my calculations would be wrong. However, if I include them, you argue that diffraction effects don't apply. Until you learn a little bit about the effects of diffraction in optics, you lack the basic physics knowledge needed to analyse the return signal streangth.

3. As I have pointed out, I know nothing about the real-life practical aspects of the equipment setup, including the losses that derive from other considerations (atmospheric attenuation, tracking errors, equipment sensitivity, etc etc). You have been pointed at a paper that analyises these; if you can't be bothered looking it up I am not prepared to do so on your behalf.

4. At the end of the day, we know your calculations are wrong, produce they generate answers that are orders-of-magnitude different from those actually observed. If the point of the exercise is to find the errors in your calculation, me producing a different (and hopefully correct) analysis doesn't help this at all.

5. You have rejected calls to convert your calculations to the standard form (using attenuation factors) almost universally used for these types of analysis. This makes it far more difficult to find the errors in your calculations, as the various terms are no longer independent. As I have previously advised, if you want help finding your errors, it would be far easier if you used the standard (and dare I say "cookbook") means of solving these problems.


Meanwhile this thread is taking time from my solution to the dark
matter problem.

Ohh my dear.

I know of only two types of people working on "dark matter problems" - physicists and cranks. You are clearly no physicist. Therefore ...

.... please don't tell me I have been trying to teach basic physics to a crank?


John Polasek

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Errors in loop quantum gravity entropy calculations
    ... >entropy is dominated by the punctures of the smallest minimal spin. ... >the new papers are correct, ... calculations were completely independent. ... the same combinatorics problem in the end: ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Looking for Feedback on an Exercise Calculating the QED Path Integral and Greens Fucntions in Cu
    ... until you get a proper feel of the layout of the territory. ... A lucid account that gets away from the dumb textbook presentations ... doing the same type of calculations as are being done in these papers, ... but am extending those calculations into territory not covered by those ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: My New Website
    ... > you wilol get the distance between the centroids ... geometrical construction made up by you without any foundations in physics. ... And did you find any experimental evidence for this electron ... QM calculations are just the oposite of hand waving. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Renormalization
    ... not physics. ... evolve the bare field operators from t=-oo to time t. ... write the desired transition amplitude. ... I do not know specific finite time calculations in QED. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Aether Displacement
    ... detectors can be placed or removed from the exits to the slits while ... physical theory until you can do calculations with it." ... If you change the underlying physics, the math must also change. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)